Comprehensive Performance Assessments

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the planned difference is between comprehensive performance assessments and comprehensive area assessments.

Phil Woolas: We will be moving to a more proportionate and risk based system. This will build on the strengths of CPA and will be known as the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA). Unlike the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) which was established to bring together views on the current performance of a local authority, the new risk assessment will look at risk and will focus more on areas rather than just institutions.
	It will comprise the following elements:
	an annual risk assessment
	a scored use of resources judgment
	a scored direction of travel.
	Instead of rolling programmes of major inspection like CPA corporate assessment and Children's Services Joint Area Reviews, inspection will primarily be triggered by the results of the CAA.
	The Audit Commission will be working with the other inspectorates and stakeholders to develop and trial the risk assessment methodology over the next two-three years.

Departmental Meeting

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which local authorities sent representatives to the meeting at her Department on 31 October 2006 on data sharing; and what the formal title was of the event.

Phil Woolas: Officials from my Department held a meeting entitled 'Data Sharing Guidance and Legal Barriers for Local Authority Revenues Practitioners Meeting' on 1 November 2006 to discuss the need for data sharing guidance for revenues practitioners. The meeting was attended by a range of stakeholders including representatives from Guildford borough council, Birmingham city council, the London borough of Tower Hamlets, the London borough of Hounslow and the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. The meeting agreed that a short, focused document would be useful in assisting practitioners make informed decisions about when data could be shared in the interests on improved customer service delivery. Work on the guidance is ongoing, with a view to publication in the spring.

Domestic Violence

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what targets have been set for the number of high-security safe rooms to be built in the homes of victims of domestic violence over the next five years.

Meg Munn: The Department encourages local authorities to operate a 'Sanctuary Scheme' as part of their strategy to tackle and prevent homelessness. Schemes provide security measures to allow those experiencing domestic violence (and other hate crimes) to remain in their own accommodation where it is safe for them to do so, where it is their choice and where the perpetrator no longer lives within the accommodation.
	A victim's freedom of choice is central to the success of the scheme. I do not, therefore, consider it inappropriate to set targets for each local authority to install Sanctuary Schemes.
	However best value performance indicator 225 measures how local authorities increase the options for victims of domestic violence. In order to score fully on this indicator local authorities will need to have a Sanctuary Scheme in place.

Home Information Packs

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  what the estimated average total cost including VAT is of a Home Information Pack  (a) without a home condition report and  (b) including an Energy Performing Certificate from June 2007;
	(2)  what the total estimated cost of home information packs is  (a) before and  (b) after VAT.

Yvette Cooper: The price of the pack will be determined by the market, not Government. Estimated costs were set out in the RIA in June. These are being revised in light of the trials, discussions with stakeholders and further research.

Local Authority Charging

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the Government have plans to allow local authorities to charge local residents for  (a) pest control,  (b) hedge cutting,  (c) CCTV provision,  (d) graffiti and fly-posting removal and  (e) pre-application planning advice.

Phil Woolas: Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides a power for authorities to charge on a cost recovery basis for discretionary services where they have the power to provide the service, and the recipient has agreed to its provision and agrees to pay for it. Decisions on the use of section 93 are for local authorities to make in the light of the circumstances relevant to each area. However, local authorities are able to charge for statutory services where specific provision exists in legislation.
	Local authorities have powers to require the clearance of fly-posting and graffiti and take action to deal with pest infestations in certain circumstances, including the recovery of costs.
	The Department has commissioned research into the cost of the planning service to local authorities and as part of this we have asked the researchers to consider the costs of non-fee related work including pre-application advice and discussions.

Local Government Finance

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what proportion of the average council tax bill in England is  (a) property-based and  (b) service-based.

Phil Woolas: Council tax bills are not made up of discrete 'property-based' and 'service-based' charges.

Lyons Review

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what representations the Audit Commission has made to  (a) her Department and  (b) Sir Michael Lyons' review on reform of local government finance.

Phil Woolas: The Audit Commission made a submission in 2003 to the Balance of Funding Review for which my Department was responsible. A copy has been placed in the Library. While submissions to the Lyons Inquiry are a matter for Sir Michael, I understand that copies of all submissions from organisations to the Lyons Inquiry up to the time of the Inquiry's May report, including those from the Commission, are available on the Inquiry's website at http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk and that Sir Michael intends to publish further submissions at the time of his final report.

Mapping Data and Services

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the  (a) purpose and  (b) main areas of expenditure were of (i) the £100,000 payment to the East of England Development Agency, (ii) the £274,000 payment to the Valuation Office Agency, (iii) £7.7 million expenditure on Mapping Data and Services and (iv) the £1,160,000 transfer to the Deputy Prime Minister's Office referred to in her written statement of 21 November 2006,  Official Report, column 23WS.

Phil Woolas: The information is as follows.
	 (i) East of England Development Agency
	The £100,000 additional provision for the East of England Development Agency is funding for the Essex Green Grid environmental projects which were not completed in the previous financial year. The Essex Green Grid is a strategy for developing the urban and rural environment through the linking of green spaces via environmental improvements, greenways, cycle routes etc.
	 (ii) Valuation Office Agency
	An increase of £274,000 was made to the Department's annual budget for right to buy revaluations, reflecting a rise in the charge made by the Valuation Office Agency for revaluations requested by tenants. However, the number of right to buy applications has since fallen significantly and fewer tenants have therefore requested revaluations. As a consequence, it is unlikely that the additional £274,000 will now be required for reimbursement payments to the agency.
	 (iii) Mapping Data and Services
	The £7.7 million for mapping and data services is expenditure on the Pan-Government Agreement, a collective purchasing agreement to provide geographic information to central Government. The expenditure represents other Departments' share of the cost of the agreement and is fully offset by income from them.
	 (iv) Deputy Prime Minister's Office
	The transfer of £1,160,000 relates to the costs of functions which transferred from the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the new Deputy Prime Minister's Office in the machinery of government changes of 5 May 2006.

Valuation Office Agency

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what use the Valuation Office Agency is making of its Automated Valuation Model in its current valuation exercise; and whether the agency is using the model for valuing domestic properties when  (a) the property is sold,  (b) a new property is built and  (c) the property is valued after a material change at the request of the owner.

Phil Woolas: There is no "current valuation exercise" as the council tax revaluation in England has been postponed. Elements used in automated valuation modelling are being developed for use in supporting the normal day-to-day work of continuing to maintain the current (1993) lists.

Legal Advice

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by the Department on external legal advice in each of the past five years.

David Lammy: On the basis of available records, the total cost to the Department of external legal advice in each of the last five years is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Financial year  £ 
			 2002-03 524,059.86 
			 2003-04 490,242.08 
			 2004-05 791,050.23 
			 2005-06 456,480.95 
			 2006-07(1) 209,887.87 
			 (1) Spend to date.

Performing Arts

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money was allocated to  (a) theatre,  (b) ballet and  (c) opera in each year since 1997.

David Lammy: The following tables show the Arts Council's funding commitments (both grant in aid and lottery) to  (a) theatre,  (b) ballet and  (c) opera between 2001-02 and 2005-06.
	
		
			  (a) Theatre 
			   Total (£ million) 
			 2001-02 74.32 
			 2002-03 79.49 
			 2003-04 116.42 
			 2004-05 192.76 
			 2005-06 122.23 
		
	
	
		
			  (b) Ballet 
			   Total (£ million) 
			 2001-02 26.75 
			 2002-03 22.30 
			 2003-04 27.47 
			 2004-05 26.69 
			 2005-06 27.79 
		
	
	
		
			  (c) Opera 
			   Total (£ million) 
			 2001-02 38.89 
			 2002-03 40.41 
			 2003-04 52.91 
			 2004-05 46.70 
			 2005-06 53.33 
		
	
	The 2004-05 figures for theatre include the one-off capital awards of £46.46 million to the RSC and £10 million to Leeds city council for the redevelopment of the Grand Theatre. Funding information broken down by art form for the years 1997-98 to 2000-01 is not available.

Departmental Equipment

Mark Francois: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's  (a) computers and  (b) laptops were stolen in each of the last nine years; and what the total value was of stolen computers and laptops in this period.

Derek Twigg: The following table shows the quantities of laptops and computers assessed as stolen for the last nine years:
	
		
			  Number 
			   Laptops stolen  PCs stolen 
			 1998 9 n/a 
			 1999 23 0 
			 2000 38 1 
			 2001 32 4 
			 2002 49 5 
			 2003 73 3 
			 2004 173 2 
			 2005 40 6 
			 2006 66 2 
		
	
	Since 2003 it has been obligatory for all MOD units and establishments to report incidents of loss or theft of computing equipment to the MOD's joint security co-ordination centre (JSyCC). The data are now collated on a central JSyCC database. Prior to 2003 incidents were reported but the reporting requirement made no distinction between losses and thefts and details were not collated centrally. The JSyCC database does not include details of the cost of the equipment concerned, and therefore the MOD is unable to provide fully accurate details of their value without disproportionate effort.

Royal Auxiliary Air Force

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the  (a) inflow and  (b) outflow of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force was in each year since 1997.

Derek Twigg: The data showing the inflow and outflow of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (RAuxAF) in each year since 2000 are given in the following table:
	
		
			  Number 
			   Intake  Outflow 
			 2000 670 580 
			 2001 300 390 
			 2002 260 400 
			 2003 320 320 
			 2004 450 450 
			 2005 340 460 
			 2006 to October 190 180 
			  Notes 1. Data have been rounded to the nearest 10. Numbers ending in "5" have been rounded to the nearest 20 to prevent systematic bias. 2. The inflow and outflow data have been sourced directly from RAuxAF Squadrons. Data prior to 2000 are not available. Data for the calendar year 2006 are incomplete as they record inflow and outflow up to October 2006.

Royal Naval Reserve

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the  (a) inflow and  (b) outflow of the Royal Naval Reserve was in each year since 1997.

Derek Twigg: The following table provides inflow and outflow figures for Royal Naval Reservists for each complete financial year from 1997.
	
		
			  Number 
			   Inflow  Outflow 
			 1997-98 590 400 
			 1998-99 440 320 
			 1999-2000 600 470 
			 2000-01 560 590 
			 2001-02 680 560 
			 2002-03 540 570 
			 2003-04 280 540 
			 2004-05 200 530 
			 2005-06 270 430

Territorial Army

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the  (a) inflow and  (b) outflow of the Territorial Army was in each year since 1997.

Derek Twigg: The following table shows the intake and outflow of TA personnel during the period 1 October 2003 to 31 October 2006. October 2003 is the earliest date for which reliable TA inflow and outflow data are available.
	
		
			  Inflow and outflow of the Territorial Army by calendar year( 1, 2, 3, 4) 
			  Calendar year  Inflow( 5)  Outflow( 6) 
			 2003 (1 October to 31 December) 3,360 2,370 
			 2004 7,690 9,410 
			 2005 8,650 8,240 
			 2006 (up to 31 October) 6,800 8,670 
			 (1) The data exclude full-time reserve service (FTRS), non-regular permanent staff (NRPS) and mobilised TA but includes the officer training corps (OTC). (2) The data are based on flows during the period 1 October 2003 to 31 December 2003, calendar years 2004 and 2005, and 2006 to 31 October. (3) The data have been rounded to the nearest 10, numbers ending in '5' have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to avoid systematic bias. (4) Figures are for both officers and soldiers. (5) Inflow figures include all inflow e.g. intake from civil life and intake from other parts of the armed forces, but does not include the inflow of personnel returning from mobilisation. (6) Outflow figures exclude those personnel who became mobilised.

Pensions

Oliver Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the average Exchequer contribution towards a civil service final salary pension is, as a percentage of pensionable salary.

Patrick McFadden: Employer contribution rates for members of the principal civil service pension scheme (PSCPS) are assessed for each of four ranges of pay levels and are set at a level, which together with employee contributions, is intended to meet the costs of benefits accruing in the year. This approach is set out in Resource Accounts 2005-06 of Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation, a copy of which is available in the Library for the reference of Members. The current employer contribution rates expressed as a percentage of pensionable pay are shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Rate of employer contribution as a percentage of pensionable pay 
			  Salary band  Percentage 
			 £18,500 and under 17.1 
			 £18,501 to £38,000 19.5 
			 £38,001 to 65,000 23.2 
			 £65,001 and over 25.5 
		
	
	The average employer contribution is estimated at 19.4 per cent. of pensionable pay. A higher rate, of 26.5 per cent. of pensionable pay, is payable by the Prison Service for prison officers employed before September 1987 and who are entitled to enhanced benefits.

Education: North-east England

Stephen Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the teacher to pupil ratio was in infant school classes in  (a) Jarrow constituency and  (b) South Tyneside in each year since 1997; and what the national average was in each year since 1997.

Jim Knight: The information requested is not collected centrally.
	Information on pupil:teacher ratios is available for overall school types but not for individual age groups or year groups.
	The available information relating to maintained primary schools is given in the following table.
	
		
			  Maintained primary schools( 1) : pupil:teacher ratios—position in January each year: 1997 to 2006 
			   Pupil:teacher ratios( 2) 
			   Jarrow parliamentary constituency  South Tyneside local authority area  England 
			 1997 23.1 23.4 23.4 
			 1998 22.9 23.1 23.7 
			 1999 22.3 22.5 23.5 
			 2000 22.1 22.2 23.3 
			 2001 21.3 21.3 22.9 
			 2002 21.5 21.2 22.5 
			 2003 21.3 21.0 22.6 
			 2004 21.2 20.9 22.7 
			 2005 21.7 21.3 22.5 
			 2006 21.6 20.9 22.0 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Based on full-time and full-time equivalent of part-time qualified teachers.  Source: Schools Census

Education: North-east England

Stephen Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size for  (a) primary and  (b) secondary schools was in (i) Jarrow constituency and (ii) South Tyneside in each year since 1997; and what the national average was in each year since 1997.

Jim Knight: The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		
			  Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : average class size( 2 ) 1997-2006—position in January each year 
			   Jarrow parliamentary constituency  South Tyneside local authority area  England 
			   Primary  Secondary  Primary  Secondary  Primary  Secondary 
			 1997 26.4 22.7 27.0 22.7 27.5 21.7 
			 1998 26.2 22.0 26.9 22.5 27.7 21.7 
			 1999 25.9 22.4 26.2 22.8 27.5 21.9 
			 2000 25.4 22.1 25.8 22.7 27.1 22.0 
			 2001 25.5 21.7 25.8 22.4 26.7 22.0 
			 2002 25.0 21.8 25.2 22.0 26.3 21.9 
			 2003 25.0 21.4 24.9 21.8 26.3 21.9 
			 2004 25.0 22.0 25.2 21.9 26.2 21.8 
			 2005 25.2 21.8 25.3 22.0 26.2 21.7 
			 2006 25.8 21.1 25.4 21.1 26.3 21.5 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Classes taught by one teacher during a single selected period on the census day in January.  Source: Schools Census

History

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many history graduates entered teacher training in order to qualify as secondary school history teachers in each of the last 10 years.

Jim Knight: The following table shows the number of history graduates entering Initial Teacher Training (ITT) courses in order to qualify as secondary school history teachers in England between 2000/01 and 2004/05.
	
		
			  Number of history graduates entering post graduate initial teacher training to qualify as secondary school history teachers 
			   History graduates entering teacher training to qualify as a secondary school history teacher 
			 1998/99 630 
			 1999/2000 630 
			 2000/01 660 
			 2001/02 700 
			 2002/03 650 
			 2003/04 530 
			 2004/05 510 
			  Notes: 1. Includes universities and other HE institutions, SCITT and OU, but excludes employment based routes. 2. Recruitment numbers shown are rounded to the nearest 10. 3. Figures for 2005/06 will be available in July 2007.  Source: TDA's Performance Profiles

Languages: Schools

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in England have English as an additional language.

Jim Knight: holding answer 15 January 2007
	The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		
			  Maintained primary, secondary and all special schools( 1, 2, 3) : number and percentage of pupils by first language, as at January 2006 
			  England 
			   Pupils of compulsory school age and above 
			   Primary Schools( 1)  Secondary Schools( 1)  Special Schools( 2) 
			   Number of pupils  Percentage of pupils( 4)  Number of pupils  Percentage of pupils( 4)  Number of pupils  Percentage of pupils( 4) 
			 First language is known or believed to be other than English 419,600 12.5 314,950 9.5 8,040 9.5 
			 First language is known or believed to be English 2,927,160 87.4 2,979,220 90.1 76,490 90.3 
			 Unclassified (5) 2,300 0.1 12,390 0.4 190 0.2 
			 Total (6) 3,349,050 100.0 3,306,570 100.0 84,720 100.0 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes General Hospital Schools. (3) Excludes dually registered pupils. (4) The number of pupils by their first language expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils of compulsory school age and above. (5) Information was not sought or refused. Includes 11 pupils in secondary schools for whom data on first language was missing. (6) Pupils of compulsory school age and above  Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. There may be discrepancies between the sum of constituent items and totals as shown.  Source:  Schools' Census

Languages: Schools

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many  (a) primary and  (b) secondary schools fall within each percentage point in terms of the proportion of pupils attending the school who have English as an additional language.

Jim Knight: The requested information is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : number of schools in England by the percentage of pupils whose first language is known or believed to be other than English( 2) , as at January 2006 
			   Number of schools 
			  Percentage  Primary  Secondary 
			 0.0 to 0.9 6,625 992 
			 1.0 to 1.9 2,380 609 
			 2.0 to 2.9 1,504 341 
			 3.0 to 3.9 962 189 
			 4.0 to 4.9 668 154 
			 5.0 to 5.9 511 99 
			 6.0 to 6.9 425 75 
			 7.0 to 7.9 306 73 
			 8.0 to 8.9 283 59 
			 9.0 to 9.9 211 44 
			 10.0 to 10.9 191 43 
			 11.0 to 11.9 180 28 
			 12.0 to 12.9 136 24 
			 13.0 to 13.9 133 23 
			 14.0 to 14.9 116 23 
			 15.0 to 15.9 94 29 
			 16.0 to 16.9 98 20 
			 17.0 to 17.9 85 20 
			 18.0 to 18.9 99 23 
			 19.0 to 19.9 77 18 
			 20.0 to 20.9 78 19 
			 21.0 to 21.9 82 17 
			 22.0 to 22.9 61 17 
			 23.0 to 23.9 53 15 
			 24.0 to 24.9 53 18 
			 25.0 to 25.9 59 9 
			 26.0 to 26.9 51 18 
			 27.0 to 27.9 47 10 
			 28.0 to 28.9 50 11 
			 29.0 to 29.9 44 9 
			 30.0 to 30.9 60 13 
			 31.0 to 31.9 49 8 
			 32.0 to 32.9 51 9 
			 33.0 to 33.9 33 9 
			 34.0 to 34.9 31 14 
			 35.0 to 35.9 34 6 
			 36.0 to 36.9 42 7 
			 37.0 to 37.9 48 8 
			 38.0 to 38.9 38 7 
			 39.0 to 39.9 40 7 
			 40.0 to 40.9 34 3 
			 41.0 to 41.9 28 8 
			 42.0 to 42.9 38 9 
			 43.0 to 43.9 33 9 
			 44.0 to 44.9 33 3 
			 45.0 to 45.9 35 9 
			 46.0 to 46.9 35 2 
			 47.0 to 47.9 34 11 
			 48.0 to 48.9 42 12 
			 49.0 to 49.9 24 6 
			 50.0 to 50.9 28 11 
			 51.0 to 51.9 27 6 
			 52.0 to 52.9 24 3 
			 53.0 to 53.9 22 11 
			 54.0 to 54.9 25 8 
			 55.0 to 55.9 33 5 
			 56.0 to 56.9 20 4 
			 57.0 to 57.9 34 6 
			 58.0 to 58.9 26 7 
			 59.0 to 59.9 32 5 
			 60.0 to 60.9 33 1 
			 61.0 to 61.9 28 3 
			 62.0 to 62.9 31 3 
			 63.0 to 63.9 28 4 
			 64.0 to 64.9 26 3 
			 65.0 to 65.9 27 8 
			 66.0 to 66.9 19 2 
			 67.0 to 67.9 23 2 
			 68.0 to 68.9 18 6 
			 69.0 to 69.9 19 8 
			 70.0 to 70.9 25 4 
			 71.0 to 71.9 25 8 
			 72.0 to 72.9 18 5 
			 73.0 to 73.9 15 3 
			 74.0 to 74.9 10 3 
			 75.0 to 75.9 17 0 
			 76.0 to 76.9 12 1 
			 77.0 to 77.9 19 1 
			 78.0 to 78.9 21 3 
			 79.0 to 79.9 18 2 
			 80.0 to 80.9 20 2 
			 81.0 to 81.9 11 1 
			 82.0 to 82.9 18 2 
			 83.0 to 83.9 22 2 
			 84.0 to 84.9 9 3 
			 85.0 to 85.9 14 3 
			 86.0 to 86.9 15 2 
			 87.0 to 87.9 17 2 
			 88.0 to 88.9 25 6 
			 89.0 to 89.9 22 3 
			 90.0 to 90.9 14 2 
			 91.0 to 91.9 22 2 
			 92.0 to 92.9 11 1 
			 93.0 to 93.9 13 2 
			 94.0 to 94.9 19 3 
			 95.0 to 95.9 21 1 
			 96.0 to 96.9 22 0 
			 97.0 to 97.9 27 3 
			 98.0 to 98.9 23 1 
			 99.0 to 99.9 16 1 
			 100 16 0 
			 Total 17,504 3,367 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Pupils of compulsory schools age and above are classified according to first language.  Source: Schools Census

Per Pupil Funding

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average funding per pupil for  (a) primary and  (b) secondary school pupils in (i) England and (ii) Somerset was in each of the last 10 years.

Jim Knight: The average funding per pupil for primary and secondary school pupils in England and Somerset from 1997-98 is contained within the following tables:
	
		
			  Funding per pupil, Somerset and England, 1997-98 to 2005-06 
			   Real terms, excluding pensions transfer to EPS and LSC 2003-04 to 2005-06 
			   Somerset  England 
			   3 to 10 year olds  11 to 15 year olds  3 to 19 year olds  3 to 10 year olds  11 to 15 year olds  3 to 19 year olds 
			 1997-98 2,350 3,200 2,830 2,480 3,390 3,030 
			 1998-99 2,440 3,270 2,890 2,580 3,470 3,090 
			 1999-2000 2,620 3,390 3,030 2,750 3,610 3,230 
			 2000-01 2,830 3,650 3,260 2,990 3,900 3,480 
			 2001-02 2,980 3,800 3,390 3,160 4,110 3,650 
			 2002-03 3,040 3,890 3,470 3,250 4,210 3,760 
			 2003-04 3,190 3,980 3,580 3,450 4,280 3,880 
			 2004-05 3,290 4,150 3,710 3,550 4,450 4,020 
			 2005-06 3,460 4,300 3,870 3,770 4,640 4,230 
			  Notes: 1. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of standard spending assessment/education formula spending (EFS) settlements and exclude the pensions transfer to EFS. 2. Total funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged 3-10 and 11-15 and exclude education maintenance allowances (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level. 3. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to £ per pupil are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC 3 year old maintained pupils and estimated 3 to 4 year olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers. 4. Some of the grant allocations have not been finalised. If these do change, the effect on the funding figures is expected to be minimal. 5. Real terms at 2005-06 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 27 September 2006. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10. 
		
	
	The following figures are taken from the new Dedicated Schools Grant and are in cash terms. They are not comparable with those for the earlier years. The Somerset and England Dedicated Schools Grant per pupil funding figures are:
	
		
			  £ 
			   Somerset  England 
			  Baseline   
			 2005-06 3,153 3,410 
			 2006-07 3,365 3,643 
			
			  Dedicated Schools Grant   
			 2007-08 3,582 3,888 
			  Notes: 1. The total funding figures only run to 2005-06 because we cannot provide a consistent time series beyond that year as the introduction of the Dedicated School Grant (DSG) in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded. The 2004-05 and 2005-06 figures are based on Education Formula Spending (EPS) which formed the education part of the Local Government Finance Settlement, plus various grants. This was an assessment of what local authorities needed to fund education rather than what they spent. In 2006-07 funding for schools changed with the introduction of the DSG which is based largely on an authority's previous spending. 2. Dedicated School Grant (DSG) has a different coverage to EFS: EFS comprised a schools block and an LEA block (to cover LEA central functions whereas DSG only covers the schools block. LEA block items are still funded through Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG's) Local Government Finance Settlement but education items cannot be separately identified. This means that we have a break in our time series as the two sets of data are not comparable; an alternative time series is currently under development. 3. To provide a comparison for 2006-07 DSG, we have isolated the schools block equivalent funding in 2005-06; as described above this does not represent the totality of 'education' funding in that year. There are other grants that support the schools budget, these are not included in the provided DSG figures as some of these grant figures are not yet available. 4. These figures are in cash terms and include the pensions transfer.

Pupil Exclusions

Lee Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in  (a) primary and  (b) secondary schools were excluded in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

Jim Knight: The available information is given in the table.
	
		
			  Maintained primary and secondary schools( 1) : number of exclusions 2000/01 to 2004/05, England 
			   Maintained primary schools  Maintained secondary schools 
			   Permanent exclusions( 2)  Fixed period exclusions  Permanent exclusions( 2)  Fixed period exclusions 
			   Number  Percentage( 3)  Number  Percentage( 3)  Number  Percentage( 3)  Number  Percentage( 3) 
			 2000/01(4) 1,440 0.03 7,310 0.23 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 2001/02 1,450 0.03 7,740 0.24 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 2002/03 1,300 0.03 7,690 0.23 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 2003/04 1,270 0.03 41,300 0.97 8,320 0.25 288,040 8.66 
			 2004/05 1,090 0.03 43,720 1.04 8,070 0.24 329,680 9.94 
			 n/a = not available, 2003/04 is the first full year for which fixed period exclusions data are available. (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) The number of permanent exclusions are as confirmed by local authorities. The numbers shown here for permanent exclusions are as reported by schools. The data are unconfirmed and known to be incomplete. (3) The number of exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year. (4) Permanent exclusions for 2000/01 are estimated as a number of local authorities have not confirmed the data for their schools.  Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.  Source: Schools' Census and Termly Exclusions Survey

Special Educational Needs

David Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children with special educational needs have been educated at special schools in each year since 2003.

Parmjit Dhanda: The information requested is shown in the tables.
	
		
			  Special schools: Number and percentage of pupils with special educational needs (SEN), position as at January each year, 2003 to 2006, England 
			   Pupils with statements( 1) 
			Total pupils in maintained special schools( 2)  Total pupils in non-maintained special schools 
			   Total pupils in all schools( 3)  Number  Percentage( 4)  Number  Percentage 
			 2003 250,550 85,800 34.2 4,840 1.9 
			 2004 247,590 84,250 34.0 4,700 1.9 
			 2005 242,580 83,290 34.3 4,740 2.0 
			 2006 236,750 82,570 34.9 4,660 2.0 
		
	
	
		
			   Pupils with SEN without statements( 1) 
			Pupils in maintained special schools( 5)  Total pupils in non-maintained special schools 
			   Total pupils in all schools( 3)  Number  Percentage  Number  Percentage 
			 2003 1,169,780 1,890 0.2 40 0.0 
			 2004 1,197,490 1,800 0.1 30 0.0 
			 2005 1,230,800 1,750 0.1 40 0.0 
			 2006 1,293,248 1,690 0.1 60 0.4 
			 (1) Excludes dually registered pupils. (2) Includes general hospital schools. (3) Includes pupils with statements in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, special schools, pupil referral units, independent schools, city technology colleges and academies. (4) The number of pupils with statements in special schools expressed as a proportion of the number of pupils with statements in all schools. (5) Excludes general hospital schools. Data for pupils with SEN without statements is not collected from these schools.  Note: Totals have been rounded to the nearest 10.

Teaching Staff: Coventry

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many  (a) teachers,  (b) teaching assistants and  (c) support staff were employed in Coventry local education authority schools in each year since 1992.

Jim Knight: holding answer 17 January 2007
	The following table provides the number of full-time equivalent teachers, teaching assistants and support staff employed in local authority maintained schools in Coventry local authority, January 1992 to 2006.
	
		
			  Full-time equivalent number of teachers, teaching assistants and support staff employed in maintained schools in Coventry local authority, January 1992 to 2006 
			  As at January each year:  Teachers( 1)  Teaching assistants( 2)  Support staff( 2, 3) 
			 1992 — 270 740 
			 1993 2,820 210 750 
			 1994 2,860 390 (4)790 
			 1995 2,780 390 (4)820 
			 1996 2,790 380 (4)940 
			 1997 2,800 390 990 
			 1998 2,780 440 1,040 
			 1999 2,810 440 1,070 
			 2000 2,800 670 1,170 
			 2001 2,870 820 1,350 
			 2002 2,920 690 1,560 
			 2003 2,910 640 1,610 
			 2004 2,920 740 1,630 
			 2005 2,910 770 1,760 
			 2006 2,980 770 1,960 
			 (1) DfES annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies (618 g). (2) Annual School Census. (3) Support staff figures include teaching assistants numbers. (4) Does not include data for pupil referral units.  Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

Truancy: London

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the rate of truancy in each London borough was in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Knight: The Department does not hold data on pupils recorded as truant. However, the figures for the proportion of half days missed due to unauthorised absence (of which truancy forms a part) in maintained mainstream schools in London boroughs are given in the following table.
	
		
			  Half days missed in maintained mainstream primary schools( 1)  in London boroughs due to unauthorised absence 
			  Percentage 
			  Local authority  2001/02  2002/03  2003/04  2004/05  2005/06 
			 Barking and Dagenham 1.52 1.37 1.34 1.27 1.22 
			 Barnet 0.64 0.56 0.65 0.74 0.54 
			 Bexley 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.44 0.54 
			 Brent 0.49 0.41 0.55 0.54 0.59 
			 Bromley 0.40 0.43 0.60 0.53 0.67 
			 Camden 1.10 0.77 0.56 0.57 0.60 
			 Croydon 0.55 0.69 0.73 0.63 0.66 
			 Ealing 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.26 0.32 
			 Enfield 1.11 1.11 0.81 0.75 0.71 
			 Greenwich 1.38 1.45 1.24 1.16 1.33 
			 Hackney 1.36 1.36 1.16 1.04 1.12 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 0.61 0.76 0.70 0.62 0.75 
			 Haringey 1.62 1.39 1.13 1.21 1.08 
			 Harrow 0.32 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.17 
			 Havering 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.31 
			 Hillingdon 0.71 0.67 0.58 0.55 0.59 
			 Hounslow 1.03 1.19 1.16 1.08 1.10 
			 Islington 1.20 1.26 0.96 0.81 0.72 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 0.89 0.59 0.40 0.35 0.46 
			 Kingston upon Thames 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.29 0.24 
			 Lambeth 1.07 1.07 0.97 1.01 0.99 
			 Lewisham 1.35 1.06 0.97 1.09 1.11 
			 London, City of 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.03 0.03 
			 Merton 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.39 0.27 
			 Newham 1.53 1.04 0.71 0.76 0.89 
			 Redbridge 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.93 
			 Richmond upon Thames 0.27 0.32 0.35 0.44 0.53 
			 Southwark 1.78 1.74 1.61 1.34 1.23 
			 Sutton 0.41 0.26 0.31 0.37 0.50 
			 Tower Hamlets 1.38 1.20 1.19 1.22 1.24 
			 Waltham Forest 0.53 0.54 0.68 0.53 0.64 
			 Wandsworth 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.62 
			 Westminster, City of 0.77 0.62 0.51 0.68 0.87 
		
	
	
		
			  Half days missed in maintained mainstream secondary schools( 1)  in London boroughs due to unauthorised absence 
			  Percentage 
			  Local authority  2001/02  2002/03  2003/04  2004/05  2005/06 
			 Barking and Dagenham 2.04 1.91 1.93 2.00 1.58 
			 Barnet 0.95 0.97 1.07 1.01 0.92 
			 Bexley 1.19 0.75 1.11 0.71 1.12 
			 Brent 0.73 0.86 0.56 1.05 0.78 
			 Bromley 1.10 1.09 1.00 1.13 1.16 
			 Camden 1.41 1.58 1.17 1.38 2.24 
			 Croydon 0.68 1.10 1.18 1.39 1.37 
			 Ealing 1.02 0.87 0.70 0.74 0.72 
			 Enfield 1.92 1.85 1.49 1.85 1.63 
			 Greenwich 2.49 2.37 2.82 2.69 2.85 
			 Hackney 2.57 2.07 1.86 1.88 1.23 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1.76 1.69 1.72 1.66 1.12 
			 Haringey 2.43 2.32 1.84 1.86 1.83 
			 Harrow 0.69 0.52 0.48 0.51 0.45 
			 Havering 0.60 0.56 0.61 0.64 0.83 
			 Hillingdon 1.49 1.63 1.43 1.58 1.71 
			 Hounslow 1.05 1.02 1.15 1.09 1.31 
			 Islington 1.65 1.51 1.41 1.72 1.69 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1.91 1.66 1.01 0.59 0.66 
			 Kingston upon Thames 0.57 0.51 0.33 0.61 0.58 
			 Lambeth 0.99 0.60 0.50 0.58 0.55 
			 Lewisham 2.68 2.38 2.49 1.91 1.83 
			 London, City of — — — — — 
			 Merton 1.20 1.34 1.34 1.62 1.01 
			 Newham 2.12 1.60 1.23 1.09 0.95 
			 Redbridge 0.73 0.69 0.94 0.93 0.91 
			 Richmond upon Thames 2.54 2.10 1.99 2.51 2.34 
			 Southwark 1.74 1.79 1.59 1.69 2.21 
			 Sutton 0.89 0.66 0.69 0.67 0.76 
			 Tower Hamlets 2.41 2.03 1.97 2.42 2.05 
			 Waltham Forest 1.72 1.37 1.57 1.74 1.36 
			 Wandsworth 1.34 1.09 0.82 1.11 1.22 
			 Westminster, City of 1.76 1.59 1.95 1.77 1.98 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. 
		
	
	Unauthorised absence is absence without leave from a teacher or other authorised representative of the school. This includes all unexplained or unjustified absences, such as lateness, holidays during term time not authorised by the school, absence where reason is not yet established and truancy.

Carbon Emissions

Mark Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government projects the total carbon emissions of the UK will be for  (a) domestic consumption,  (b) (i) domestic and (ii) international aviation, (c) road transport and (d) power generation in (A) 2030 and (B) 2050.

Ian Pearson: The Department of Trade and Industry produced updated energy projections in July 2006. Projections for the residential and transport sectors are shown in the table. These projections are made on an end-user, rather than source basis, meaning emissions due to electricity are attributed to the user, rather than to the power generating sector.
	Projections for the power generation sector are not available at this time. Aviation projections are given in the final column of the table. The aviation data are consistent with the central case emission forecast in the January 2004 White Paper, Aviation and Global Warming. These data include emissions from both domestic and international aviation.
	
		
			  Projected sectoral CO 2  emissions from Updated Energy Projections number 26 (million tonnes of CO 2 )—aviation projections taken from 2004 White Paper, "Aviation and Global Warming" (central case emission forecast) 
			   2030  2050 
			 Residential sector (Mt CO2) 150.7 173.4 
			 UK transport sector (Mt CO2) 152.2 148.5 
			 Domestic and international aviation (Mt CO2) 65 64

Recycling

Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of tonnes of plastic waste exported to China for recycling in each of the last five years.

Ben Bradshaw: There is a control framework for the shipment of waste to and from the UK. However, where non-hazardous waste (such as separated recyclables) are exported, they are generally subject only to commercial controls, not to the prior notification and consent procedures which apply to exports of hazardous waste. Therefore, they are not notified to anyone. However, it is possible to estimate based on trade data which suggests that large quantities of plastic, paper and metal, from municipal and commercial sources, are being exported to countries such as China and India. We are unable to provide exact figures for individual countries.
	Estimates of waste plastics exported from the UK over each of the last five years are set out in the table as follows:
	
		
			   Exports (tonnes) 
			 2001 80,000 
			 2002 101,000 
			 2003 195,000 
			 2004 345,000 
			 2005 325,000 
			  Source:  UK trade statistics website and DEFRA

British Citizens: Convictions Abroad

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedure her Department has in place for the transfer of the records of British criminals convicted abroad from consulates abroad to the London Consular Division.

Kim Howells: When posts overseas are informed of the arrest of a British national., details of the arrest are entered by consular staff on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office central consular assistance database: "Compass". Compass allows real time case management by staff overseas and in London, including details of convictions when known, so the separate transfer of records from consular staff overseas to the London Consular Division is not necessary.

EU Accounts

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how many years the accounts of the European Union have been denied authorisation by the official auditors; for what reasons the auditors have withheld their approval; and what steps are being taken by  (a) member states and  (b) EU bodies to resolve the problem.

Geoff Hoon: The European Court of Auditors report on the 2005 European Commission Budget is the 12(th )year in succession in which they have been unable to issue a positive Statement of Assurance. This is the result of errors found in the sample of transactions which the Court audits. The bulk of these errors represent such things as small overpayments to farmers and payments for expenditure which do not meet strict eligibility rules. The UK, as announced to the House by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, on 20 November 2006,  Official Report, columns 13-14WS, Denmark and the Netherlands are working to provide a better assurance of funds managed. The European Commission produced its Roadmap to an Integrated Internal Control Framework in July 2005, which the UK took forward under its Presidency of the EU, and have followed this up with their Action Plan towards an Integrated Internal Control Framework in January 2006.

Iraq

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government are taking to prevent the persecution of Mandaeans in Iraq.

Kim Howells: Violence in Iraq continues at appallingly high levels and we are concerned about its effects on all communities in Iraq, including Mandean Baptists. Officials from our embassy in Baghdad last met with representatives of the Mandean community in August 2006 to discuss the problems they faced. In our regular contacts with the Iraqi government we press for action to protect people, regardless of faith or political persuasion, and to take tough measures against all perpetuating the violence.
	The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights is responsible for the protection of minorities in Iraq. We have supported the Ministry by providing advisors, training and human rights training material, including on the rights of minorities, to be used to educate officials in other government departments and institutions.

Community Care Services

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many service users of social services departments have been in receipt of direct payments in each year since 1997; and how many adults receiving community care services provided by social services departments there were in each year since 1997.

Ivan Lewis: The number of adults aged 18 and over receiving direct payments and community-based services during the year in England is shown in the table for 2000-01 to 2005-06. The table also includes the total number of adults receiving social services, including residential care as well as community-based services. Data for earlier years is not available.
	
		
			  Number of adults aged 18 and over receiving direct payments, community-based services and social services in England, 2000-01 to 2005-06 
			  Rounded number 
			   Clients aged 18 and over receiving 
			  1 April to 31 March  Direct payments( 1)  Community-based services( 2)  Social services( 3) 
			 2000-01 5,000 1,330,000 1,568,000 
			 2001-02 6,000 1,372,000 1,632,000 
			 2002-03 10,000 1,403,000 1,679,000 
			 2003-04 15,000 1,462,000 1,737,000 
			 2004-05(4) 24,000 1,455,000 1,720,000 
			 2005-06(5) 37,000 1,492,000 1,748,000 
			 (1) Direct payments are defined as cash payments made in lieu of social service provisions, to individuals who have been assessed as needing services. (2) Community-based services include home care, day care, meals, overnight respite (not in the clients home), short-term residential care (not respite), direct payments, professional support, equipment and adaptations and other community-based care provided by the council. (3) Social services include community-based services, local authority residential care, independent sector residential care and nursing care. (4) Data on the number of people receiving community-based services from 2004-05 is not comparable to previous years. In 2004-05, restated guidance was issued to exclude people receiving services from grant-funded organisations who had not had a community care assessment. (5) Data for 2005-06 are provisional.  Source: Information Centre, RAP.

Food Supplements Directive

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what progress has been made by  (a) the Food Standards Agency and  (b) the Better Regulation Executive in assessing the economic impact of the setting of maximum permitted levels of nutrients under the terms of the Food Supplements Directive;
	(2)  how many letters from individual consumers have recently been received by officials of the Food Standards Agency expressing concerns about the setting of maximum permitted levels of nutrients in food supplements;
	(3)  what progress has been made by the Food Standards Agency in producing an authoritative dossier of legal advice to support its promotion to the European Commission of a system of Advisory Statements under the terms of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive;
	(4)  what the policy background was to the adoption by the Food Standards Agency of its system of advisory statements in connection with the setting of maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements; when that approach was adopted; what the rationale was behind the approach; what consumer and manufacturer organisations supported its introduction; what steps she is taking to promote acceptance of such an approach within the European context; and if she will make a statement;
	(5)  what recent response she has received from the European Commission to the United Kingdom's objectives for the setting of maximum permitted levels for nutrients in supplements under the provisions of the Food Supplements Directive; and when she expects this issue next to be discussed by member state representatives at Working Group meetings.

Caroline Flint: Food Standard Agency (FSA) officials have met with the Better Regulation Executive and Small Business Service to discuss options for assessing the economic impact of the setting of maximum permitted levels of nutrients under the terms of the Food Supplements Directive. A series of questions are being prepared in order to obtain relevant information from industry to complete the assessment.
	No letters from individual consumers to FSA officials have been received expressing concerns about the setting of maximum permitted levels of nutrients in food supplements. However over 300 letters have been received from small companies and employees from a health food company.
	FSA officials are seeking legal advice on the use of a system of advisory statements under the terms of the Food Supplements Directive.
	The FSA developed the policy for a system of advisory statements following the publication of the results of risk assessment of vitamins and minerals by the expert group on vitamins and Minerals (EVM) in 2003. The majority of food supplement products on the United Kingdom market in 2003, contained amounts of vitamins and minerals that were well below the safe upper levels set by the EVM. However, a small number of products contained levels of vitamins and minerals which were higher than the safe upper level set by the EVM, in single dose form, which could cause adverse effects in some individuals if taken on a regular basis. In consultation with industry representatives from the Council for Responsible Nutrition, Health Food Manufacturer's Association and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, a number of advisory statements were agreed in May 2004 to be included on labels, which provide information on the potential adverse effects for these products.
	The use of advisory statements approach has been discussed in bilateral meetings between FSA officials, the European Commission and other member states. Further bilateral meetings are planned.
	FSA officials met with the European Commission on 8 November 2006 to discuss the UK Government's response to the Commission's discussion document on setting levels of vitamins and minerals in foodstuffs.
	The Commission welcomed the UK response and indicated that the work by the EVM on setting safe upper levels for on a scientific basis would be a key factor in developing proposals. A timeline for developing proposals has not yet been agreed by the Commission. Working group discussions between member states may begin in late spring with proposals not expected to be brought forward before the end of 2007.

Gender Equality

Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what her Department's priorities are for the implementation of the gender equality duty across the health sector;
	(2)  how her Department plans to assist the national health service in preparing for coming into force of the gender equality duty.

Rosie Winterton: The Department has undertaken a number of activities to promote equality issues in the national health service, including the forthcoming gender equality duty, and particularly to support the NHS meet its responsibilities under the gender duty. The Department's strategy for promoting gender equality in the NHS is to set action on gender issues within the overall framework for planning and delivering the Department's and NHS' priorities.
	The Department has worked closely with NHS organisations to prepare them for the gender duty when it comes into force in April this year. A detailed programme of work is in place to ensure the implementation of the gender duty across the whole health sector. The programme includes the measures set out as follows.
	The Department is currently developing a gender equality duty guide to assist the NHS meet the duties of the gender duty legislation and will be published at the end of January 2007.
	This guide will be available to all NHS organisations and will be accessible on the Department's website.
	We are working with inspectorate bodies and the Equal Opportunities Commission to ensure that gender equality issues are integrated into inspection arrangements and sector specific guidance provided to help the health sector promote gender equality.
	We are working in partnership with key stakeholders such as the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Women and Equality Unit of the Department for Communities and Local Government, NHS Employers and the Men's Health Forum (MHF) to take forward work on the gender equality duty. A conference was organised for the NHS in November 2006 aimed at creating and enhancing awareness of the meaning of gender and its relevance to health, increasing understanding of the general and specific duties of the gender duty, providing information and guidance on the implementation of the specific duties
	The Department's equality and human rights group is leading a project aimed at supporting the equalities agenda through the development of single equality schemes in the NHS. The project has been set up in anticipation of possible further duties in relation to age, religion and belief and sexual orientation and plans to encourage work to pull together the different equality strands without compromising any of the individual elements in a cross cutting and coherent fashion. Project leads provide support in terms of expertise in the field of equalities legislation, facilitating partnerships and joined up working, research, sharing of good practice and producing guidance. Project leads also provide specific guidance on the gender and disability duties. The organisations involved are committed to producing a single equality scheme and will collectively produce learning that identifies the different steps required to meet both current and likely duties which will be meaningful to the host of diverse organisations within the NHS. Development and outcomes from all the programmes outlined above will be shared and disseminated throughout the NHS.
	We have published "Promoting Equality and Human Rights in the NHS—a Guide for Board Members" aimed at helping non-executive board members take forward the issues of equality and human rights with regard to patients and the work force. The guide outlines the legislative framework and the principles that underpin equality and human rights. It demonstrates the business case for promoting and delivering equality and human rights, and includes a set of prompts for boards to take stock of how fairly their organisations treat their patients and work force. The guide incorporates current and imminent legislation and includes all board members.
	The pacesetters programme headed by the equality and human rights group. This programme places equality including gender equality at the heart of NHS business, organisational objectives and core values, impacting upon future health planning, performance management and delivery. The group is working with up to five strategic health authorities to deliver equality and diversity improvements and innovations resulting in:
	patient and user involvement in the design and delivery of services;
	reduced health inequalities for patients and service users; and
	working environments that are fair and free of discrimination.
	The participating SHAs launched their local involvement in the programme in November 2006.

Hepatitis C Website

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visitors the hepatitis C information website, www.hepc.nhs.uk had in each month during 2006.

Caroline Flint: The information requested is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Number of visitors to the NHS hepatitis C awareness website, www.hepc.nhs.uk, in 2006 
			 January 8,072 
			 February 6,843 
			 March 7,557 
			 April 6,369 
			 May 7,710 
			 June 6,511 
			 July 5,600 
			 August 5,335 
			 September 6,650 
			 October 6,461 
			 November 6,558 
			 December 7,319 
			 Total 80,985 
			  Notes: A visitor is considered to be an internet user with a unique internet protocol (IP) address. If the visitor returns to the website within 30 minutes of their previous visit, it is still considered as the same user session or visit. If the visitor returns to the site after 30 minutes, then it is counted as a separate user session and a new visit.

DNA Database

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many profiles held on the DNA database relate to people under the age of 18 who have been  (a) arrested but had no further action taken against them,  (b) charged but later acquitted,  (c) charged, where such charges were subsequently dropped, and  (d) given a reprimand or final warning; and if he will make a statement.

Joan Ryan: Data on the arrest histories of persons with a profile on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) is not held on the NDNAD, but is held on the Police National Computer (PNC). However, the data requested is not currently available routinely from the PNC.
	The data provided in the reply given by my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham) on 31 January 2006,  Official Report, column 367W, was obtained from data extracted from the PNC for monitoring and research purposes. The PNC data extract was provided to the ACPO DNA and Fingerprint Retention Project Team (funded by the Home Office Forensic Science and Pathology Unit) and the NDNAD Data Quality and Integrity Team in November 2005.
	The data requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by cross-searching approximately 3 million records retained for such persons on the PNC.
	The Home Office, ACPO and PITO are holding discussions on the possibility of being able to provide such information from the NDNAD and PNC.

Passports

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many  (a) passport applications and  (b) passports were lost in the post in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Joan Ryan: The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) do not keep records of instances where customers advise that an application has apparently gone missing in the post en route to a passport office.
	Similarly IPS do not have records on the numbers of passports accompanying passport applications lost in the post en route to a passport office.
	The numbers of passports lost whilst on delivery from IPS for the last five years are as follows;
	
		
			   Number 
			 2001 2,541 
			 2002 2,982 
			 2003 3,593 
			 2004 (1) 601 
			 2005 (2)1,018 
			 2006 (3)654 
			 (1) February to January 2005 (2) February to January 2006 (3) February 2006 to October 2006 
		
	
	Prior to 2004 passports were delivered by Royal Mail but February 2004 saw the introduction of secure delivery, with the delivery of passports undertaken by Secure Mail Services.

Police

Andrew Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total Government grant to the Metropolitan police was for  (a) 1996-97 and  (b) 1997-98.

Tony McNulty: Total Government grant for the Metropolitan police for the years requested is set out as follows:
	
		
			  Total Government grant( 1) 
			   £ million 
			 1996-97 1,563.1 
			 1997-98 1,587.5 
			 (1) General grant and capital provision.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he or Ministers from his Department last visited Bangladesh; and what steps his Department is taking to support the re-establishment of favourable conditions for free and fair elections in Bangladesh.

Gareth Thomas: The Secretary of State for International Development visited Bangladesh in December 2005.
	DFID is working closely with the British High Commission in Dhaka to support the re-establishment of favourable conditions for free and fair elections.
	Our common assessment, shared with much of the international community, that preparations for the Bangladesh election planned for 22January lacked credibility, and that the election would have been boycotted by the main opposition parties, led to DFID's decision to suspend plans to support civil society monitoring and international observation of this election.
	On 11 January the President proclaimed a State of Emergency, postponed the elections and resigned as Chief Adviser to the Caretaker Government. A new Chief Adviser was appointed on 13 January.
	With the British High Commissioner, DFID is seeking meetings with the Chief Adviser and other Advisers of the new Caretaker Government to offer further technical and financial support for actions that will ensure a free and fair election. If this is accepted, we will prioritise this in the months ahead. In addition, our ongoing support for a programme to monitor and prevent political violence in Bangladesh will continue during the state of emergency.
	When the date of a new election, based on credible preparations that ensure that the election will be free and fair and contested by all major parties, is announced, we expect to resume support for civil society election monitoring and international observation. If necessary, we will revise the planned activities to fit the new political environment.

BAE Systems

Susan Kramer: To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions  (a) he,  (b) the Attorney General and  (c) officials from his Department have had with other Ministers on the recent decision by the Serious Fraud Office not to pursue the investigation into BAE Systems and its aircraft contract with Saudi Arabia.

Mike O'Brien: holding answer 8 January 2007
	In December 2005 the Attorney General, in accordance with the well-established procedure known as a "Shawcross" exercise, sought views from ministerial colleagues as to the public interest considerations raised by the SFO investigation. Such views were provided to the Attorney in December 2005 by the Prime Minister and the then Foreign and Defence Secretaries and updated in September 2006. Further such views were provided to the Attorney by the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Defence Secretaries in December 2006. Those views were conveyed to the Director of the SFO. In addition the Leader of the House of Commons raised the case with the Attorney General in November 2006. The decision to discontinue the investigation was taken by the SFO in its capacity as the independent prosecuting and investigating authority.

BAE Systems

Vincent Cable: To ask the Solicitor-General what meetings  (a) the Attorney General and  (b) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office had in 2006 with (i) representatives of BAE Systems and (ii) the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: Neither the Attorney-General, nor I, nor the Director of the SFO held any meetings with representatives of BAE Systems. The Director of the SFO met HM ambassador to Saudi Arabia three times (in November and December 2006). I also attended the final meeting. The Attorney-General had no meetings with the ambassador.

Employment Agencies

James McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been made to the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate under  (a) regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 and  (b) under regulation 9(11) of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 1976 in the last five years; how many of these complaints were upheld; and how many complaints led to prosecution proceedings.

Jim Fitzpatrick: holding answer 16 January 2007
	A total of 33 complaints have been made to the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate under regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003. Statistics on complaints made under regulation 9(11) of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 1,976 are not readily available as complaints statistics under these regulations were not disaggregated in this way. One of these complaints was upheld, and a corrective letter sent to the agency concerned. None of the complaints have led to prosecution proceedings.

Pay Bargaining Unit

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last full equal pay audit was conducted in each pay bargaining unit in his Department; at which grades there is a gender pay gap of more than 5 per cent.; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the most recent equal pay audits.

Gillian Merron: holding answer 19 December 2006
	The information requested is set out in the following table.
	
		
			  Date of the last equal pay audit  Bargaining unit  Grades with a gender pay gap above 5 per cent.  Will a copy of the audit be placed in the Library? 
			 2006(1) DfT (Centre ) None Yes, subject to completion of discussions with all associated parties 
			 2006 Vehicle Certification Agency None Yes, subject to completion of discussions with the Trade Unions 
			 2005 Highways Agency Pay Band 1 (AA) No 
			 2006 Vehicle and Operator Services Agency None No 
			 2003 Driving Standards Agency None A copy is already available in the Libraries of the House 
			 2006(2) Maritime and Coastguard Agency Pay Band C (EO) Yes, once the final document is agreed with the Trade Unions 
			 2006 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency None Yes, subject to completion of discussions with the Trade Unions 
			 2005 Government Car and Despatch Agency None A copy is already available in the Libraries of the House 
			 (1) September (2) August

Disabled People

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of disabled people were living in  (a) relative and  (b) absolute poverty in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Murphy: The information requested is in the following tables.
	
		
			  Proportion of disabled people living in households with less than 60 per cent. contemporary median income, Great Britain 1996-07 to 2004-05 
			   Proportion (percentage) 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 1996-97 21 30 
			 1997-98 22 29 
			 1998-99 23 30 
			 1999-2000 22 30 
			 2000-01 22 28 
			 2001-02 23 29 
			 2002-03 22 26 
			 2003-04 21 25 
			 2004-05 21 24 
			  Notes: The commonly used low income threshold of below 60 per cent. of contemporary median has been used for statistics showing 'relative low income'. Disabled people include the total of disabled children, disabled working age and disabled pensioners. Percentages are rounded to the nearest percentage point.  Source:  Family Resources Survey 
		
	
	
		
			  Proportion of disabled people living in households with less than 60 per cent. absolute median income, Great Britain 1996-07 to 2004-05 
			   Proportion (percentage) 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 1996-97 21 30 
			 1997-98 22 31 
			 1998-99 18 23 
			 1999-2000 16 21 
			 2000-01 15 18 
			 2001-02 12 15 
			 2002-03 10 13 
			 2003-04 10 12 
			 2004-05 10 11 
			  Notes: The low income threshold of below 60 per cent. of 1996-07 GB median has been used in this answer to determine 'absolute low income'. There are other thresholds. Disabled people include the total of disabled children, disabled working age and disabled pensioners. Percentages are rounded to the nearest percentage point.  Source:  Family Resources Survey

Education Funding

David Gauke: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the additional funds going directly to schools announced in the pre-Budget report 2006 will be classified as  (a) current expenditure and  (b) capital expenditure.

Stephen Timms: The pre Budget report 2006 announced an additional £130 million of funds going directly to schools in 2007-08. This is all provided as current expenditure.
	The pre Budget report also confirmed that schools capital investment will rise to £8.0 billion in 2010-11.

Public Expenditure

Mark Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of average per capita public expenditure on each income decile group in each year since 1997-98.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the national statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 18 January 2007:
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the estimate is of the average per capita public expenditure on each income decile group in each year since 1997-98. (115524)
	Estimates of cash benefits and benefits in kind received by households are provided in the ONS analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income'. The latest analysis for 2004/05 was published on the National Statistics website on 12th May 2006 at http://wvvw.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. The analysis is based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey, which is a sample survey covering approximately 7,000 households in the UK. Through measuring household receipts of benefits, this analysis shows how government expenditure on cash benefits and benefits in kind are allocated to different types of households, and in particular households in different income decile groups.
	The results in the article are presented for households rather than on a per capita basis. However, the table below shows average per capita receipts of cash benefits and benefits in kind for each income decile group. A more detailed breakdown by different types of benefit appears in the annual article (although presented as household averages, rather than per capita).
	Cash benefits include things like Income Support, Child Benefit, Incapacity Benefit, and the state Retirement Pension. The estimates of benefits in kind reflect the value of education and health services provided by the state to households, and also include housing and travel subsidies. Together these items constitute approximately 55 per cent of total government expenditure. They are the parts of government expenditure which can be directly allocated to households. Other types of expenditure such as on defence cannot be allocated except on the assumption that all households benefit equally.
	
		
			  Average per capita receipts of benefits by household income decile( 1)  1997-98 to 2004-05, UK 
			  £ per year 
			   Decile groups ranked by equivalised disposable household income 
			   Bottom  2nd  3rd  4th  5th  6th  7th  8th  9th  Top  All households 
			 1997-98 3,610 3,768 4,175 3,587 2,847 2,547 2,010 1,757 1,469 1,355 2,633 
			 1998-99 3,546 3,966 4,115 3,517 2,946 2,479 2,117 1,675 1,495 1,366 2,685 
			 1999-2000 3,884 4,323 4,302 3,726 3,217 2,738 2,326 1,968 1,617 1,477 2,937 
			 2000-01 4,212 4,510 4,329 3,812 3,180 2,618 2,194 1,998 1,664 1,441 2,956 
			 2001-02 4,238 4,941 4,869 4,189 3,515 3,047 2,497 2,167 1,673 1,639 3,261 
			 2002-03 4,515 4,952 5,082 4,440 3,819 3,384 2,837 2,287 2,087 1,785 3,514 
			 2003-04 4,866 5,538 5,287 4,516 4,113 3,440 3,103 2,539 2,278 1,917 3,744 
			 2004-05 5,309 5,694 5,618 4,936 4,199 3,945 3,217 2,675 2,230 2,171 3,979 
			 (1) Benefits include cash benefits (income support, housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance etc.) and benefits in kind (the value of education and health services provided by the state, plus travel and housing subsidies).  Source: 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income', ONS.